That’s not quite my point. My point is that marriage is an exchange of rights between two individuals. It’s a bundle of legal contracts. And there’s centuries of caselaw explaining how those legal contracts work.
Providing that same bundle to any two adults who want the bundle is a ridiculously easy task. And it’s a very different task from providing an analogous bundle to three or more adults.
I don’t know what happens with your mother and the six children. I do know that if one of you has signed a power of attorney, then we’re back on firmer ground. That’s because it’s a well-understood legal situation. If she’s signed power of attorney over to three of you, then we get back into murky areas.
hehehehe Kimstu, To tell you the truth: I had no idea. I’ve checked this:
Which says that Registered partnership and Civil Marriage are near enough the same.
As to why the Registered partnership is still an option?
I think it’s because the wheels of our government turn slowly. Very slowly.
But I guess you must have noticed that.
[I think your knowledge of Dutch is amazing and admirable.
I truly hope the Netherlands isn’t too much of a disappointment for you and that you’ll have a great time.]
But if my mother had only one child, things would be easy. She has six. That makes things harder. Yet we don’t make it so that people only have one child because we don’t like the complications that arise from having six. (And considering that I was the last, I’m kinda grateful for that!)
I don’t understand why you’re talking about kids and moms. This is completely beside the point.
Here’s how it is:
There’s a great history of caselaw dealing with how to handle marriages between two people. Agree, or disagree?
From a logistical standpoint, it’d be absurdly easy to extend this exact same set of caselaw to cover any marriage between any two adults. Agree, or disagree?
From a logistical standpoint, it’d be far more difficult to extend this exact same set of caselaw to cover marriages involving three or more adults. Agree, or disagree?
Given the statements above, it makes sense to allow SSM immediately (as well as to any other two adults who want these rights, for whatever reason), and separate it from the much thornier situation of marriages covering three or more adults. Agree, or disagree?
The fact that there are other areas of law that are equally thorny (e.g., you and your five siblings) is completely irrelevant.
Why in the world is it irrelevant? If someone claims that certain things shouldn’t be allowed because they are simply too hard (which I consider a non-argument), then surely it’s relevant to bring up other situations which are just as “hard” but which we deal with all the time.
Decide it’s the right thing to do, then make it work. That’s the way everything happens.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed. I’m saying it should be dealt with separately. Just like we should also deal with the Endangered Species Act separately, and like we should deal with the Estate Tax separately, and a host of other, nonrelated issues separately, even though they should all be dealt with.
The complications inherent in extending marriage benefits to polygamous groups make it a sufficiently different issue from extending marriage benefits to adult couples that we should handle the two separately.
It’s worth noting that not all people with multiple relationships have a religious meaning behind it. Some of us just happen to be in love with and settled down with multiple people.
Marriage as it is currently defined: a legally recognized union (conferring certain rights and status) between a man and a woman
more or less equal to
Marriage: a legally recognized union (conferring certain rights and status) between two people
but far less equal to
Marriage: a legally recognized union (conferring certain rights and status) to a group.
If you can’t see that there is a bigger gulch between the first and third definition than between the first and third or second and third then you’re the one being silly.
As I’ve said, I really don’t care what three or more people do so long as they’re happy and law abiding and self supporting, etc., none of which are usually the case in polygamy. Usually this is not the case: the polygamists in America, for example, are most often Fundamentalist Mormons, who are notorious for their abuser of welfare (generally speaking one man just can’t support 20 children, even if some of them are his wives) and underaged sexuality and the like, or more hippie/communal types, which again usually fell apart due to human jealousies and economic impossiblity. Historically twosomes are incomparably more economically and emotionally viable than "more-than-two"somes, and the arrangements governing a group marriage is incomparably more complicated, as I’ve mentioned.
Two does not equal three. Mathematical fact. Whether or not man/woman = man/man = woman/woman is a whole other debate, but the fact that both same sex unions and polygamous unions are “not the norm” does not make them equal.
Well I’m sure you’ve been wrong and offended before. This will just make one more time.
I am aware that most people are simply unaware of people with multiple marriagelike relationships who aren’t religious fanatics, but that sort of anecdotal evidence is quite poor. (None of the people I know with multiple marriagelike relationships is a religious fanatic; I don’t think that this is a good cite for the whole United States, as I don’t know everyone.)
Note that I am saying “marriagelike relationships” because under United States law, only one marriage can be recognised at a time, no matter what the people involved hold the relationships to be. There are, strictly speaking, no polygamists in the United States, because an additional marriage is deemed void and cannot be contracted.
“Lifestyle” means “manner of living”, often “representative of some group”, with a strong connotational implication of economic output and status; my manner of living is pretty much identical to that of most people in my age group (late twenties to early thirties), region (urban New England), class (upper middle), primary income source (employment in a technical field), and large-scale property status (homeowning, one car). I live with one other person, who is the primary income in the household, and work at home. Want more manner of living information? The people living here mostly cook from scratch and we play a lot of Warcraft.
If it’s not describable as a manner of living, it is not a lifestyle, because “lifestyle” means “manner of living”. Unless you can describe what it is to live polygamously, of course – but that runs the same risk as that canard, “gay lifestyle”, of being nothing more than an illusion or stereotype that bears no actual resemblance to the lives of the people it claims to describe, generally to their detriment.
Actually I cannot find statistics on irreligious polygamous unions in America. I have found cites that estimate the number of people in polygamous unions who are affiliated range between 30,000 and 50,000. Do you honestly think that the number of people who alive “multiple marriagelike relationships” not affiliated with a religion exceeds that? (The question is not rhetorical, I am asking.)
So evidence based on numbers of estimated polygamous marriages in the United States is poor, but “people Lilairen knows” is far more reliable. Personally I don’t know any people in a “multiple marriage like” relationship and I’ll wager most Dopers can say the same, so your anecdotal evidence would seem to be even weaker.
Pity my mental enfeeblement, but I see only utterly arbitrary limiting criteria in all three cases.
Really? Could the three or more parties come before you and, like two lovers of the same gender, earnestly convince you of their happiness and financial independence from the state, such that the only law they don’t abide by is that which arbitrarily forbids their contract? Heck, if these are the criteria by which we establish who may marry, the entire institution is in peril from unhappy/criminal/benefit-claiming monogamous hetero or homosexuals!
Like I said, an assessment to ensure that willing consent to all parts of the contract (which need not be so complicated, really, at least no more complex than your average Hollywood pre-nuptual agreement) is all that’s necessary in my book for three or more people to be “married”. Call it something else if you like.
Congrats to Kimstu for getting most stuff right. Geregistreerd partnerschap (Registered Partnership / Civil Union) was instated for those who did not want to marry (some people take issue with the term marriage in reverse to the way some religious people take issue to the term marriage being used outside a religious context), but also increasingly for those who weren’t allowed to marry. It is possible to view this is a slippery slope strategy, but more suitable would be to view it as an intermediate step to a higher level. Just depends on what way you look at it.
However, currently there are still a few differences, the most significant one being that of the status of parents/children. If, say, a heterosexual couple has a child, then the father does not automatically become parent. He has to recognise the child in order to become the legal father. An example of a minor difference is that for the legal marriage to take effect, the words for confirming the contract are fixed to “I do” (Dutch: het ja-woord geven). In the civil union (registered partnership), you can determine for yourself how you want this to be arranged (a pop-duet?), besides the normal legal signing of a contract with a notary present.
Finally, it is clear that this Dutch story, where the three are signing a cohabitation agreement but are celebrating it as if they were marrying, is being used as a straw man for the slippery slope arguments against gay marriage.
Which does kinda suck for you, since there another difference is that there is an established trend in Europe for allowing men who enjoy harpooning the chocolate starfish together to form a couple enjoying the exact same legal right as any hetero couple. Unfortunately the US seems closer to Iran, where a relatively religious population and a strident fundamentalist minority seem destined to demonise same-sex relationships for the foreseeable future.
Well, as has been pointed out many times already, polygamy is an institution that has been and is practiced by many different cultures. Same-sex marriage is, as far as I am aware, a total innovation with no history behind it. While it’s administratively straightforward, the same could be said for marrying your sister.
Finally! A use for the French has been found!!
I think a lot of this comes down to just differing cultural contexts. In the US marriage is very important because it affects your legal rights and obligations a lot and the fundies are stuck on this whole ‘1 Man 1 Woman 4 Ever’ nonsense. In parts of Europe no-one gives a stuff because you can write in the name of any competent adult who is not a blood relative in the ‘Life Partner’ box and they will receive the same rights as if you had done the whole walking up the aisle thing.
Erm, in a commonlaw jurisdiction, who cares if a situation is covered by case law? As soon as it hits a court, it will establish a precedent and there’s your case law. I thought that was the point of common law?
Anyhow, I really fail to see where this notion of ‘it’s too complicated to allow because the courts wouldn’t be able to deal with it’ comes from. If French napoleonic law can deal with polygamous marriages in overseas jurisdictions, and swedish law can deal with the inevitable situations where one person has someone else’s husband down as their ‘sambo’ or where people die before they’ve had a chance to update their paperwork to reflect their current shacking up arrangements, why would the US be unable to deal with it? Complexity is a non-issue.
As far as I can see, the only reason anyone can argue against polygamy is either ‘ick’ or ‘it wouldn’t be appropriate given the traditions and culture of this country’, which is exactly the same as for the SSM argument.
I also don’t think it an either/or situation or an ‘if one then the other’. They are two potential amendments to the rules regarding marriage, neither posing any real practical difficulties and both of extreme significance to certain groups in society, but completely independent of each other.
Like anything else in human affairs, if your fellow citizens allow it within the framework of your society then great, if not you are SOL and have no option but emigration. Since assorted right-wing loons seem intent on amending everything from the Bill of Rights to the text on bus tickets in an effort to prevent Sampiro and others from marrying who they want, it looks like both Polygamy and SSM will stay off the menu for US citiziens for a while.
I fail to see where it comes from, as well–certainly not from my posts. Please reread my posts above correcting jsgoddess’s misapprehension of my stance.
[bolding mine]
I fear have misunderstood both your original statement and your subsequent clarification, so please bear with me.
If you mean it would be best to deal with them in separate amendments to the marriage code (assuming there will be changes pertaining to both) then I have committed yet another comprehension error. That seems perfectly valid and while I have no idea how these things are done in practice, short simple steps is normally best for me.
If you mean there should be multiple sets of marriage codes for different situations, then that seems somewhat inequitable. If I am married and Sampiro is also married, and our marriages are regarded as being equal in status, then why wouldn’t we both be covered by the Generic Bundle of Rules Defining Marriage And Its Benefits Act (as amended 1802, 1988, 2004)?
If we are forced to sign up under different rules because of who we marry it is a slight on one of our marriages, and one of us is going to plenty miffed.
If a class of marriage is allowed, whether it be SSM, Polygamy or whatever, then equity before the law would seem a prerequisite. If justice isn’t blind I would suspect its impartiality.
It’s not an issue of equity: it’s an issue of difference. Traditional marriage involves a reciprocal exchange of rights. When I die, you get dibs on my property. When you die, I get dibs on your property. If I’m in the hospital, you become the gatekeeper, determining who may and may not visit me; and vice versa.
With three people, the reciprocity becomes far more complicated. If I die and I have two wives and a husband, how is my property divided? Simple equity would say that my spouse gets my property–but I have three spouses. It’s much easier to divide my property into one share than into three shares. Multiple marriages are more complicated in this respect, and we can’t just do a simple transfer of rights over.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t come up wtih legal structures for multpiple marriages; I absolutely think we should. But we should do the copmlicated work after we’ve done teh absurdly simple work of making all adult couple marriages legally recognized.
I would suspect so, but I don’t know of any formal statistics either.
I know that there are social organisations for people in multiple relationships (marriagelike or otherwise) in many, perhaps most major cities in the States. There are several personals sites specifically catering to people interested in multiple relationships. There are also many people who have multiple relationships who are not engaged in this subcultural stuff; I doubt William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman), for example, would have participated in it even had there been a strong such community in the relevant time period, which means a census based on participation in such community strongly limited to start with. People who settle down in multi-adult families without making contact with others doing the same would be impossible to locate with common statistical stuff; there’s no easy way of distinguishing even those who live together from, say, “Married couple with housemate”, especially if they are closeted about their family.
I would guess, from my own anecdotal observation again, that a conservative estimate of number of people interested in multiple marriagelike relationships from these communities is one in ten. (A fair number of people are interested in one marriage and multiple dating relationships, are opposed to marriage in its entirety, or some other preference that is not polygamous.) I do not have a strong basis for guesstimating what the proportions might look like outside that subculture.
No, I explicitly said, if you read for content, that the anecdotal information was limited, and pointed out that the view from my position, as an example, was rather different than someone who only knows what they read about Tom Green and his ilk.
